Search results

Clearly, you don’t understand how a compass works. Either that, or you didn’t think through this before posting it.

If by claiming that John Calvin were a Roman Catholic, you are entitled to dismiss his statement as invalid, then yes. Normally, an argument is considered to be ‘ad hominem’ if it is about your adversary in the debate rather than about a third party.

You’re laughably deluded. It’s quite sad.

This is hilarious. You are the one adding to the text!

Which is what you have done here.

Thanks. I’m not arguing between individuals and corporate church. :)

You really do sound like Goebbels.

No. It’s disturbing how the quality of education and rigour of examination varies so widely.

The text is clear: He chose us. ‘’According’ does bring the context into perspective but doesn’t remove ‘us’ as the object. When did you stop reading the plain text?

I'm surprised. Usually you are a stickler for the actual text, and here you are rejecting the text in favour of a preconceived idea. The text states clearly, "he hath chosen us", not "he hath chosen them". You can't simply ignore the object of the choosing because you don't agree with someone's...

Agreed, so one's belief as to the actual shape of the earth determines one's conclusion regarding the validity of the composite.

Why do you consider a "composite" as "fake"? If the result is composed of real images stitched together to minimize distortion and maximize image and subject quality, what is the concern? Unless, of course, you have a pre-existing bias against the possibility of the real subject....

Had you stopped before your last sentence, I could have agreed with you. The accuracy of the Bible is certainly not a matter of faith, but of evidence. The vast majority of variants are very minor issues that don't affect doctrine at all. The remainder don't affect any primary doctrines.

There is a very sound, rational, and fully moral reason for the flood. That you don't know or understand that reason doesn't mean the flood is somehow "immoral".

Correct, which is why you have legions of atheists believing their rules should be obeyed by all. Technically correct, but missing the mark because of the actual existence of objective rules. That they cannot all be right does not prove that none are right. It's not "blind" faith. The Bible...

That's a non-answer.

Gotcha. It’s a bit cheesy, but at least it’s made for sharing.

Okay, you have done this to death. How about contributing to the thread in a meaningful way?

This sounds somewhat like the process used to ‘create’ Jason Bourne in the books and movies bearing his name.

Do you enjoy being immature?